Is 'loyal and/or tolerated opposition' morally right? (..) sceptical, prudential, and progressivist solutions to the problem of precedence (..) Ethical pluralism is a doctrine which is constituted by four fundamental claims - incompleteness, complementarity, incommensurability, and accessibility (based on ideas of Isaiah Berlin and W. B. Gallic). (..) Pluralists believe that, in a variety of common circumstances, there is no single coherent policy which is morally complete (..) For example, if we maximize economic output we might ipso facto fail adequately to implement the demands of distributive justice. This is the doctrine of incompleteness. (..) Many common policy decisions will therefore involve "trade-offs". (..) Which particular trade-off is preferred by any fully moral agent will depend on the weights which he or she assigns to the complementary dimensions of moral choice (output and justice). And there may be, according to pluralism, no uniquely correct way of assigning these weights. (..) Can we provide, within a pluralistic framework, a solution to the problem of precedence? (..) two factors - economic output and distributive justice - disagreement may lie solely in the weights which each thinks it right to assign to these complementary dimensions. (..) A solution to the problem of precedence demands at least this:--( 1) that I provide some basis for acceptance of the doctrine of ethical pluralism; ( 2) that I show that this solution does not fall foul of the criticisms with respect to which other solutions were rejected; ( 3) that I show how we might, using the resources so far developed, resolve two conundrums--formulated by Wollheim and by Milne--which are closely related to the conundrum of democratic opposition; and ( 4) that I show how to meet some readily anticipated criticisms of the pluralistic solution. (..) We unavoidably approach the world, our lives, and our fellows from different perspectives. (cf Booth's analog: seeing a cone from different angles) > ethical pluralism. |